Scholars Debate “Jezebel” Seal

The Ninth Century Is There

Michael Welch — United States Of America (5/1/2008 6:59:28 PM)

Dr. Ryan Byrne has written another fine and detailed article. I agree with him most emphatically that the iconography was engraved before the epigraphy and thus put constraints on the letters being engraved. In addition to Dr. Avigad, Drs. Hestrin and Dayagi-Mendels noticed that the iconography had been engraved before the epigraphy as well. They say so on page 48 of their Inscribed Seals book. However, like Dr. Avigad, and apparently Dr. Benjamin Sass, Drs. Hestrin and Dayagi-Mendels dated this seal to the Ninth to Eighth Centuries. Dr. Andre Lemaire probably did as well. All five of these scholars called the palaeography or epigraphy Phoenician or possibly Phoenician. It is also interesting that Dr. Christopher Rollston says this about two of the four letters: "The morphology of Yod and Lamed are indeed better Phoenician forms than they are Old Hebrew." in his ASOR article that you mention above. Dr. Rollston's strong stance in his ASOR article that the Bet is recumbent and must be Old Hebrew is negated by Dr. Byrne and other scholar's observation that its engraving was hindered by the iconography already present. There are numerous examples in our West Semitic Seal Corpus that show that Dr. Rollston is incorrect in his ASOR article statement that the engravers always had things figured out, before engraving the letters. At the very least the twenty-one LMLK seals of King Hezekiah, which are definitely Royal seals, have letters upside down, backwards, false starts, etc. What I find even more interesting than this, is a comparison of this seal to the Gezer Calendar script. Although it is not stratified, it has been dated to the tenth century like the Tel Zayit Inscription. The Zayins at the end of the first line and in the sixth line are pretty much identical to this seal; the Yods found on all seven lines are very similar(having the rounded top stroke); the Lamed towards the end of the fifth line is also pretty much identical; the Bet on the bottom left hand side written vertically is not that close because it has the characteristic on the bottom half of what Mr. Wolfe calls the "Lame Bet" or a forged bet that does not have a sharp bottom half. However, I am confident that the Gezer Calendar is authentic. Thus, Dr. Byrne can attempt to date this seal to the Eighth Century like Dr. Rollston and Dr. Amihai Mazar, but there are other scholarly epigraphers, who have dated it to the Ninth Century. I respect You and Dr. Rollston and Dr. Amihai Mazar. Dr. Mazar taught right along side of Dr. Barkay and Dr. Rainey when I studied in Jerusalem in the 1980s. I have to disagree with all three of you and say that the Ninth Century is There on this seal and other seals. Dr. Avigad said that the owner of this seal could be a contemporary of Jezebel. Thus, it is a Ninth Century seal, according to the epigrapher who you call: "the expert nonpareil of West Semtic seals" above in your article. The seal of Shemaryau, WSS 377, is also dated by Dr. Avigad to the Ninth Century. Its cursive script is pretty much identical to the Samaria Ostraca of the late Ninth Century. Dr. David Diringer noticed that even in the late Ninth Century on the Samaria Ostraca there was an Advanced Hebrew Cursive Script. This is retained on this steatite scarab. Contrary to what Dr. Byrne has stated above, cursive script is retained on stone inscriptions. Dr. Frank Moore Cross noticed this on the Monumental Siloam Inscription which he calls "more developed and more cursive" on page 62 of Dr. Andrew G. Vaughn's Palaeographical Dating Of Judean Seals. Dr. Yohanan Aharoni says, about the seal impression of Nera (son of) Shebna, impressed right next to a LMLK two-winged Hebron sun disc: "All letters are clearly written in a cursive hand." on page 16 of his Excavations At Ramat Rahel. And, Drs. Hestrin and Dayagi-Mendels call the script of the seal of Shemaryau cursive. In fact, on page 59 of their Inscribed Seals book, they describe the seal like this: "Scarab seal, perforated, chipped on left side. The seal is ornamented with Egyptian hieroglyphs and pseudo-hieroglyphs in Phoenician style. In the centre, incised in cursive script, is the name of the owner." Thus, on one seal from the Ninth Century we have both hieroglyphs and cursive Hebrew Script. The hieroglyphs are what Drs. Mazar, Rollston, and Byrne say are supposed to be on Tenth to Ninth Century excavated seals, but not the Hebrew Script. This is supposed to be for the Eighth Century Seals. Yet, we have advanced cursive late Ninth Century Hebrew Script on both the Samaria Ostraca and this seal. Eighty-five to ninety percent of the West Semitic Seals in our Corpus are not excavated. So Drs. Mazar, Rollston, and Byrne's argument is statistically a weak one, based on a few hundred seals out of several thousands. I agree with Dr. Byrne that script forms are retained for long periods of time. For this reason, our problem is that we have not noticed Tenth and Ninth Century Seals in Our West Semtic Seal Corpus that often. With Much Gratitude, Sincerely Yours, Michael Welch, Deltona, Florida

• • • • • • •

Jezebel

Ryan Byrne — USA (5/1/2008 12:13:53 PM)

Dear Sir: Hershel Shanks was kind enough to compliment the tenor of my analysis. I feel the need to add a crucial observation, however, of BAR’s preemptive, editorial comments about Dr. Rollston, which appeared slightly less gracious than the standard Mr. Shanks has endorsed. Scholars routinely critique each other’s work in the peer-review tradition, which BAR so frequently calls “the marketplace of ideas.” Marjo Korpel published an unpersuasive article in the South African Journal for Semitics, to which Rollston, Amihai Mazar and I published responses. Dr. Rollston’s critique essentially stole the thunder of BAR’s flashy resuscitation of an obscure article for a popular audience with the so-called Jezebel seal splashed across the cover. I understand BAR’s disappointment about preemptive articles refuting Korpel’s claims appearing in advance of a heavily marketed issue, but Mr. Shanks decision to attack Dr. Rollston under the guise of defending Dr. Korpel accrues to BAR a role it need not assume. Peer-reviewed, academic media constitute the proper protocols for critique, rejoinder, and surrejoinder. Since Rollston did not even mention the BAR piece (and may not have even been aware of it given how secretly BAR protected this issue pre-press), I cannot fathom Mr. Shanks’ ire without consideration of the upstaging effect of Rollston’s critique on the ASOR website. Dr. Rollston is one of the world’s half-dozen preeminent epigraphers in the world; and the assertion that Kyle McCarter of Johns Hopkins (Rollston’s mentor and mine) would strongly disagree with Rollston’s arguments is not correct. After hours of conversation with the principals, I think we are mostly on the same page. I do not mean to suggest that BAR has no place to weigh in on scholarly debate. Surely it does, but it is difficult to overlook that the vitriol about BAR and the Korpel piece in BAR began with Mr. Shanks’ ad hominem sidebar on Korpel’s article. There is plenty of consternation to go around. Please let us move past this fracas into more pertinent scholarship for the sake of BAR’s readers if not the pursuit of academic freedom. Bar can be a champion of dialogue if it chooses the opportunity to make use of its powerful presence in the marketplace. Can’t we all just get along? Dr. Ryan Byrne Co-director, Tel Dan Expedition Rhodes College, Memphis byrner@rhodes.edu

• • • • • • •